Skip to main content

About your Search

20121101
20121130
STATION
CNN 4
CNNW 4
MSNBC 3
MSNBCW 3
LANGUAGE
English 25
Search Results 0 to 24 of about 25 (some duplicates have been removed)
of the fbi, how the fbi could have been investigating it this long, and yet, you know, general petraeus was involved, director petraeus was involved. for me if it was the fbi director had the obligation to tell the president or the national security council at the earliest state so it seems to be going on for severalonths and, yet, now it appears that they're saying that the fbi didn't realize until election day that general petraeus was involved. it just doesn't add up, and you have this type of investigation. the fbi investigating emails, the emails leading to the cia director and taking four months to find out that the cia director was involved. i have real questions about this. i think a timeline has to be looked at and analyzed to see what happened. now, as far as leaving the hole, general petraeus was an outstanding general, outstanding, dedicated public official. he is going to be missed. as i'm sure senator mendez would agree, no one is irreplaceable in government, but he will have at least a short-term impact any time you lose someone like general petraeus's stature, especially
. first of all, i'm wondering -- excuse me -- how something ichlg e-mails went to the level of the fbi, how the fbi could have been investigating it this long, and if general petraeus was involved to me the fbi had an obligation to tell the president or the national security council at the earliest date. so it seems this has been going on for several months and yet now it appears that they're saying that the fbi didn't realize until election day that general petraeus was involved. it just doesn't add up that you have this type of investigation, the fbi investigating e-mails, the e-mails leading to the cia director, and it taking four months to find out that the cia director was involved. so i have real questions about this. i think a timeline has to be looked at and analyzed to see what happened. now, as far as leaving a hole, general petraeus was an outstanding general, outstanding dedicated public official. he's going to be missed. but as i'm sure senator menendez would agree, no one is irreplaceable in government. but it is going to have at least a short-term impact. anytime you los
and shirtless fbi agent in the petraeus scandal have in common? just wait. we'll show you more. newsroom starts now. i piercing sound of an air raid station. it is a chilling sound, becoming all too familiar as rockets continue to fill the air over israel and gaza and a planned cease fire, visit to gaza by egypt's prime minister may not be holding up. senior international correspondent sarah sidner is in the middle of it all. she has more for you from gaza city. >> reporter: what is happening on both sides of the gaza/israel border looks and feels like war to anyone who has to live with it, no matter what the governments on either side have declared. this is a small taste of what it fe felt like in gauza over a 24-hor period. >> that is exactly -- all right. i'm going to move out of the way and let you get a look here. i'm going to let you get a lock at what is going on. i can see the black smoke. it's difficult to capture on camera. you saw that flash. this is what we have been dealing with all day. we've also been dealing with -- i'm sorry, the power has just gone out. we have been dealing wi
follow the facts. we do not share outside the justice department, outside the fbi the facts of ongoing investigations. we made the determination as we were going through the matter that there was not a threat to national security. >> let's jump right in and bring in our friday morning political power panel. we have jackie kucinich political reporter for "usa today", democratic strategist blake zeb and msnbc contributor robert trainum. great to have you all here. we just heard from congressman king earlier today saying the general was asked right off the top whether the affair had an impact on his testimony. he said no. they moved on. but are all indications then that the affair is now a side note and lawmakers are truly focused on what took place in benghazi and the intelligence they have now? >> this very minute, yeah. i think that's the case. will that remain the focus? i don't know. because there's a lot of questions still out there about petraeus and his relationship with his biographer as well as joe kelly in tampa. and general allen. i mean, there are a lot of moving parts here.
and departments that have their hands in the libya affair, cia, dod, state, white house, fbi, i think it's clear that the cia's jurisdiction in a lot of what happened was probably minimal. that makes petraeus's downfall all the more sad, because i think of everyone the cia and david petraeus probably had the cleanest hands in all of this. we have to see. we obviously have plenty more questions going forward. >> to your point, s.e., it shows his resignation was over the extra-marital affair. >> yeah. >> i want to take a step back here on this whole issue. i mean, i think -- let me start by saying that i think the questions about the security at the consulate in benghazi are legitimate questions that deserve investigation. the thing that republicans have really glomed onto is what susan rice said on face the nation. i want to play her comments so we can put that in context. >> i understand you have been saying that you think it was sfont n spontaneous. are we not on the same page here? >> let me tell you what we understand to the assessment at present. first of all, as you discussed with the presi
. lawmakers were set to be briefed by the fbi today on capitol hill. they have a lot of questions about all of this. why did no one inform congress or the white house that the director of the cia was currently under investigation. big question mark over that. doug, what's the latest on this today? >> developments continue to come in fast and furiously. catherine herridge is reporting some key lawmakers are openly questioning the veracity of david petraeus' testimony when he said the attack was a flash mob. and a demonstration that spun out of control. with that explanation overwhelmingly rejected many on the hill say it's vital that petraeus testify. >> i would like to hear from him within the next week or so. there is so much to learn. he has just gotten back from a trip over there. the american people have a right to know. >> reporter: investigators wants to explore whether he may have molded his briefing to the white house narrative to keep them from exposing his affair. martha: doug, obviously a lot of people on the hill as we just saw senator barrasso upset that the fbi did not alert t
and an extramarital affair, a florida socialite, a bare chested fbi agent and is this a concern or a washington smoke screen? >> i don't think anyone on either side of the aisle underestimates the difficulties. >> both sides work to gain the high ground in dealing with the looming fiscal cliff, but the media seem to be one-sided in the details. which side do you think they're on? and it's in with the new, but are the old staying, too. >> oh, you've always asked that question except to mitch mcconnell. >> on the panel this week, writer and fox news contributor judy miller. jove oldman, talk radio and jim pinkerton contributing editor the american conservative magazine, and alan colmes, author of thank liberals for saving america and i'm jon scott, fox news watch is on right now. >> this is about the role she played around four dead americans when it seems to be that the story coming out of the administration and she's the point person, is so disconnected to reality, i don't trust her. and the reason i don't trust her is because i think she knew better and if she did know better she shouldn't be the v
chief called it an act of terror. we had the fbi and i believe the national center for counterterrorism also giving briefings. >> paul: that's right. >> saying this. why was general petraeus's testimony then so at odds with other parts of the community? >> but does this, would this give-- what does it mean for, say, susan rice and the administration then? is this, does this help them politically by shielding them or does petraeus here saying i thought it was a terrorist attack, does that mean this puts, for example, susan rice's statements more up to scrutiny? >> well, i think answers the fundamental question, did they deliberately mislead on this case for political reasons because they were driving the narrative that al-qaeda had been decimated and the war, war was receding or a question of incompetence. neither of those two things is good for the administration although it's after the election, so, they can get the consequences. >> let's take a look at the president talking about susan rice, the u.n. ambassador who many think he will nominate to succeed hillary clinton as secretary of
apprentice" sex scandal leading back to square one. we know the identity of the fbi agent who helped start the investigation that eventually led to the former cia director's resignation. his name is frederick humphries ii, 47 years old and a veteran investigator. also two -- paula broadwell's security clearance is now suspended pending the outcome of the investigation. barbara starr is following developments for us from the pentagon. we're hearing so far there have been no official findings that broadwell broke any laws or engaged in criminal activity. why suspend her security clearance? >> well, you know, fran townsend is reporting just that, john, that all the indications are, from the laumt forces she's spoken to, not egregious violation. broadwell is a reservist in military intelligence with the army. and inside the military, a violation, even if it's so-called minor, of handling classified information, especially when you're a military intelligence analyst is quite serious. yes, the army has suspended her security clearance. i want to read to you the statement that the army put out. t
, this and is not my recollection. >> he also knew he was under investigation by the fbi, speaking of general petraeus. that's the big question. >> then the president is saying i didn't know until two days after the election. >> i have to say this, that speculation is absolutely reckless and it has no fact base at all and it really is a disgrace to a man. >> haen days are, indeed, here again. ♪ >> after a hard-won re-election fight, it's been a high-stakes return to the business of governing for the president of the united states. today he hosted congressional leaders at the white house to begin working on what he called the urgent business of reaching an agreement on taxes and spending cuts by the end of next month. this afternoon the president greeted a diverse range of civic leaders at the white house and, of course, he's preparing for his impending tour of southeast asia which begins at the week end. so that's what's been going on at the white house. or is it? >> the president of the united states did not tell the american people the truth about the attacks that took four brave americans' lives.
. because yesterday the cia acting director at 10:00 a.m. apparently blamed the fbi for changing the language and the guidance and the talking points. at 4:00 in the afternoon the cia acting director came back and said it was at cia after all. what explains that? >> this stuff is coming from the white house. they are hoping this will go away. i don't happen to be one of the senators she cares to talk about and maybe it's because while opposed to her from her position as ambassador of the united nations and nothing could change my mind on that. bill: based on that answer it appears you are willing to take that answer higher than susan rice with it comes to benghazi. >> this will go down as the biggest coverup in history. they all knew it. they are hoping to have it go beyond the election date which it did. but people are not going to forget it. the administration deliberately covered this and misrepresented what happened in benghazi threatened up in the both of four people. one of whom was a good friend of mine, ambassador stevens. bill: the biggest coverup in american history. >>
. to this date we don't have the fbi interviews of the survivors conducted one or two days after the attacks. we don't have the basic information about what was said of the night of the attack that's been shared with congress as of this date. so, i remember the john bolton episode pretty well, our democratic friends felt like that john bolton didn't have the information needed to make an informed decision about ambassador bolton's qualifications, john bolt tone to be ambassador, and democrats dug in their heels saying we are not going to vote, we are not going to consider this nomination until we get basic answers to our concerns. all i can tell you is that the concerns i have are greater today than they were before, and we are not even close to getting the basic answers. >> could you support her as tk*eb secretary of state nominee? >> i have many more questions that need to be answered. bill: that was fascinating. those are the three republican senators that cranked up the heat against the white house and also susan rice and john mccain on "fox news sunday" said that susan rice deserved to be h
.i.a. or the fbi, one or the other deleted any reference to possible terrorist activity at the time because they didn't want to trigger or let people know that's what they were looking into but again she's not the one that wrote the talking points or edited the talking points. she also said at the time look, these may not prove to be true down the road but this is what we've got so far. >> that's right. my impression of this is yours which is that she read from prepared talking points and delivered messages that had been vetted and developed by the intelligence community in what was a chaotic and rapidly developing situation. it became clear fairly quickly that the attack on the benghazi consulate was a premeditated effort by terrorists. the president used the word terrorist actions the next day. and this isn't something -- this isn't iran-contra. this wasn't concealed for six months or a year. there wasn't complete disavow of any knowledge. this was the intelligence community saying we shouldn't be out there publicly in the fi
Search Results 0 to 24 of about 25 (some duplicates have been removed)